I will try not to reveal much personal information in order to maintain privacy.

Anyway, I’ve known Alex for most of my life, they were pretty good for most of it.

In recent years, they’ve gone down the MAGA pipeline, and it’s gotten worse and worse over the years.

At this point: about every day they talk about illegal immigrants and Trump, often even making jokes about it.

They talked about it so much, and I tried to tell them the truth (such as that most undocumented aren’t criminals, they can’t migrate legally, etc.) and even encouraged them to do research about it, but they refused.

Here’s where things start to get crazy:

In recent times, anything they see that goes against their worldview is called “fake news” while they literally unironically called Fox News a reliable source. (Another family member made fun of them for “only looking at Fox News,” not knowing how right they were.)

They started to say how scared they are about “Venezuelan gangs” and even said that they check their windows and get scared at every sound because they are literally worried that it’s one of the “gang members.”

Then it happened:

We discussed the Garcia situation, where a legal immigrant was sent to CECOT without trial. We argued about it.

I asked stuff like, “Where’s the fair trial? Where’s the due process? Should you be punished for a crime you weren’t even tried for and convicted of?”

They kept saying lies like, “They DID get a trial! They’re an abuser! They’re a gang member! Only the worst criminals go there! You just support mean people and gang members!”

This continued back and forth, until it happened.

They cried about how scared they were of the “illegal immigrant gangs” and being attacked by them. That’s right, cried, with tears.

I was disgusted. I felt sad because they bought into this propaganda so much. And I felt amused to the point of laughing, which they didn’t like.

That person had various problems in their life. And they decided to cry about “the evil brown people coming after me!!!”

I didn’t feel sorry for them at all. That’s disgusting.

And that was just the first instance.

Recently:

We were having just a mundane conversation in the car, and they made a joke about CECOT and El Salvador. I said that I didn’t want to talk about that. They got angry and talked seriously about El Salvador. I told them again multiple times that I didn’t want to talk about it, and they kept continuing. They said stuff back at me like “You know who goes to CECOT? The worst of the worst!” so I was forced to confront them like “They send innocent people there without trial, I don’t want to talk about it.” I keep saying no, they say “I have a right to say what I believe.” I say, “I have boundaries, I want you to respect them. Can you please be respectful?” They say, “I cAn’T bElIeVe YoU sUpPoRt GaNgS!1!1!1!”

I tell them that I never said that and I want due process and don’t want to talk about this, they sounded like they were going to cry about “the brown people coming to get me again!!!” and I wasn’t in the mood to deal with that. Thankfully, I got to my destination soon after.

It is incredibly sad to see somebody I’ve known throughout my life turn into…this. Of course, there’s much worse that could’ve happened, but this is unbelievable.

They do see a therapist, and I think I should encourage them to talk to them about it.

Do you guys have any thoughts or stories to share?

  • darkernations@lemmygrad.ml
    6·
    2 days ago

    It is do with their class perspectives on the world stage.

    Nearly everyone believes in brainwashing but somehow they are exempt from it. “Brainwashing” (as we understand it in the West) is a CIA invention.

    It may be worthwhile also looking up the science of how advertising actually works, for example. It is really difficult to convince someone against their perceived material benefits.

    It is important as marxists that we understand this and focus our energy where it is worth it, and not get lost in metaphysical nonsense.

    What are the strategic consequences of decisively rejecting the tripartite social theory advanced by Orwell, and adopting Marx’s all-encompassing one instead? The basic call to action looks something like this:

    1. Stop accusing the masses of being “brainwashed.” Stop treating them as cattle, stop attempting to rouse them into action by scolding them with exposure to “unpleasant truths.”
    1. Accept instead that they have been avoiding those truths for a reason. You were able to break through the propaganda barrier, and so could they if they really wanted to. Many of these people see you as the fool, and in many cases not without reason.
    1. Understanding people as intelligent beings, craft a political strategy that convincingly makes the case for why they and their lot are very likely to benefit from joining your political project. Not in some utopian infinite timescale, but soon.
    1. If you cannot make this case, then forget about convincing the person in question. Focus instead on finding other people to whom such a case can be made. This will lead you directly to class analysis.

    From Masses, Elites and Rebels: https://redsails.org/masses-elites-and-rebels/

    • MarxMadness@lemmygrad.mlEnglish
      1·
      2 days ago

      Thanks for linking to that Red Sails post – that’s what I had in mind. I think it significantly overstates its case.

      Accept instead that they have been avoiding those truths for a reason. You were able to break through the propaganda barrier, and so could they if they really wanted to.

      It’s not that they could look past the propaganda if only they really wanted to, it’s not even that they’re avoiding the cracks in their worldview. They see the cracks, but they justify them in the manner I described above.

      I think the way you get to reachable people is by attacking those justifications, not pointing to the cracks that they already see.

      • darkernations@lemmygrad.ml
        4·
        2 days ago

        And how successful have you been? Why is it that there have been USAmerican marxists who are smarter, more charismatic and more daring than we are but have failed on the whole in the West in the sense of establishing a DOTP or even a reasonable nudge in that direction that wasn’t due to the Global South? Why have the CPC abandoned as a main strategy exporting revolution ie what lessons did they learn from Soviet mistakes? What scientific theory of change do you propose that supercedes all of the above?

        The way you reach people is to offer material benefits within the short term. If you can’t make that case and understand why then you will resort to idealism.

        • MarxMadness@lemmygrad.mlEnglish
          1·
          2 days ago

          The way you reach people is to offer material benefits within the short term.

          This has also been tried (the feasible version of it is mutual aid) without much success. The reasons it and other strategies have failed in the U.S. are (1) the repressive arm of the state is so strong, and (2) it’s a rich enough country that trying to make it within the system is still a decent option for most people.

          Now if we’re talking offering them benefits the left can’t actually deliver in the short term – guaranteed housing, education, healthcare, etc. – you have to go back to attacking their justifications for supporting the status quo. They aren’t unaware of (for example) the problems for-profit healthcare causes, and they aren’t willfully ignoring those problems, either. They justify it to themselves.

          • darkernations@lemmygrad.ml
            2·
            2 days ago
            1. you’re just providing more evidence that you can’t make the case for large swathes of USAmericans because they perceive to benefit more from capitalist society than a perceived socialist cause
            2. is there much of significant “mutual aid” in the US that was not just charity dressed up outside of maybe the Black Panther Party?
            3. and even then, Lenin:

            I recall a conversation with one fairly thorough-going “economist” with whom I was not previously acquainted. We were talking about the pamphlet Who Will Carry Out the Political Revolution? and we quickly came to an agreement that its basic shortcoming was that it ignored the question of organization. We thus imagined that we were in complete solidarity — but… the conversation continued on its course and it turned out that we were talking about different things. My fellow conversationalist accused the author of ignoring strike funds, mutual aid societies and so forth, while I had in mind the organization of revolutionaries that was necessary for “carrying out” the political revolution. And, as soon as this disagreement made itself known — well, I can’t remember that I once agreed with this “economist” about any principled issue at all!

            https://redsails.org/witbd-rs-abridged/#34-on-mutual-aid-and-red-tape

            • MarxMadness@lemmygrad.mlEnglish
              1·
              2 days ago

              I think we’re losing track of what the other person is talking about.

              I agree that a large minority of the U.S. population, maybe a quarter or a third, is unreachable in the short term (i.e., anything short of a government program offering them major direct benefits). They’re probably unreachable for a while even after that due to reactionary attitudes and all the cultural forces that reinforce those.

              I think basically the remainder of the population (or certainly the remainder that would ever be politically engaged) can be brought around with promises of major direct benefits (e.g., Medicare for All). I don’t think any sorts of benefits within the ability of leftist orgs to actually deliver right now – benefits more on the scale of the BPP’s free breakfast program, or an abortion access fund – are enough to move the needle right now.

              Because we can’t offer material benefits on the scale of what would really motivate people, and because mere promises of such benefits are of questionable value, I think we do have to do some politics and try to convince people that our program is better than whatever else is on offer. Saying we can do nothing until conditions change is defeatist, as is saying that it’s simply impossible to convince people to change their politics without a materialist carrot and/or stick.

              What I’m arguing against is the the maximalist version of “they are choosing to buy in to the system because if they wanted they could just read about the problems I’ve read about.” They see the same looming problems we see, they just justify them away in ways we don’t. We don’t have to convince them (for example) that climate change is a dire problem, we have to dispel the justification that (for example) their favorite neoliberal approach to the problem is the most we could possibly do. It’s not wilful ignorance, it’s a political horizon that’s been stunted by a lifetime of basically no significant political actors suggesting anything outside of the neoliberal consensus.

              • darkernations@lemmygrad.ml
                3·
                2 days ago

                Let’s take climate change as the example you highlighted. Why have you gone down the right track but they have not? Why have they not chosen to look it up in the first place? Are we going to posit that our political theory of change is that we are smarter and therefore we have outsmarted them in getting there first? If it is due to a political horizon stunted for a lifetime then how come you escaped it? What makes you so special? Is your case replicable at scale? (If you would like you can change the “you” to “one” or even me in all these questions)

                I will put it another way. Why is marxism neither workerism nor populism? Why are the proleteriat considered the most revolutionary class?

                These aren’t gotchas. We need to think of class perspectives and we need to think of it as more than just bourgoisie vs proleteriat.

                I believe USAmericans are a significantly reactionary mass that is more than just one-third of the population. And your examples of socdem compromises aren’t reassuring.

                We, as westerners, as a class on the world stage are regressive. We (as in western MLs) are rare to have these perspectives because it is not in most westerners’ material interests to have these perspectives so chances we do because of fucking serendipity and maybe some tangent class benefits. We have to understand our personal class limitations before we can hope to understand the science of dismantling them. This instrospection is hard because… it is not in our class benefit.

                However, we have made a case for ourselves that there are benefits scientifically (if not we will fall into reaction ourselves at the first moment of real personal crisis, just look at some artisan takes on AI for example) and we should similarly make the case for others but not ask other marxists to waste precious energy where it is not fruitful.

                • MarxMadness@lemmygrad.mlEnglish
                  1·
                  22 hours ago

                  If it is due to a political horizon stunted for a lifetime then how come you escaped it?

                  A stunted political horizon is a great way to phrase it. A lot of people peek over that horizon at some point in their lives, but turn back pretty soon because:

                  • There are no significant organized politics to the left of the Democratic Party in the U.S.
                  • There is no short-term theory of change in the U.S. left that is as credible (and safe) as “vote for someone who will pass a law to address this”
                  • Trying to change either of the above is a herculean task that will probably endanger (at minimum) your job

                  They then convince themselves that anything left of Chuck Shumer is pie-in-the-sky stuff that isn’t really serious, that Democrats do some actually good things, that some good things are better than none, that the bad things Democrats do will happen anyway, etc. Notably, a lot of people tell themselves this even if their material conditions aren’t good and are downwardly mobile. This is likely because even if you reject those justifications, you’re still stuck with the bullet points above, which are a pretty raw deal.

                  What got me to reject these justifications was a combination of Democrats largely abandoning any attempts to address major issues and Bernie offering a very credible peek over that horizon you mentioned. It’s replicable at scale because the “Democrats getting even worse” part isn’t going anywhere, and by all estimations is a fairly mainstream opinion.

                  • darkernations@lemmygrad.ml
                    1·
                    14 hours ago

                    There are no significant organized politics to the left of the Democratic Party in the U.S. There is no short-term theory of change in the U.S. left that is as credible (and safe) as “vote for someone who will pass a law to address this” Trying to change either of the above is a herculean task that will probably endanger (at minimum) your job

                    I’m not really sure what to say at this point; you are literally making the case that for large swathes of the country that they cannot be peruaded with current material conditions and strategies.

                    If that is the case, as a marxist-leninst, it is up to you to analyse which classes are revolutionary in the US and target them. Your socdem attempts through bourgoisie electoral politics will not work as you have clearly demonstrated. Sanders is not proof of anything other than the limits of bourgoisie electoral politics.

                    The answer, if anything, will likely come from this direction:

                    • you will need to organise enough capital to the extent that to build an underground resistance to provide the means for pro-social instituions to sustain and defend itself against the brutality of capitalist society. This goes way past mutual aids/strike funds/worker coops and other utopian nonsense. We are prob talking 10-100s of millions of dollars at least.
                    • you will need to seriously analyse which classes, if any, has actual revolutionary potential. I guess it is probably going to be first nations and mexicanism (https://chateauschmatte.substack.com/p/theses-on-mexicanism-feminism-and). I don’t know because I do not have enough time to personally investigate, and I am not sure if I care enough at this stage, maybe in the future, maybe someone has already done this work obscurely - Westerners are just that sick that maybe a collapse forced from the outside through their own actions is needed. And even then the likelihood is we will fall deeper into fascism.

                    You have not really answered any of the questions I have posited meaningfully and it is telling and typical of Westerners - it requires deep introspection, class betrayal and scientific analysis. Beating a dead horse of socdem electoral bourgoisie politics (you don’t even have this properly in the US, just a pathetic facsimile of this) is not going to cut it.

                    The answer to the question why the proletetiat are the most revolutionary is because they don’t have private property. I wanted you to answer this question because the next question would have been why did Mao successfully then target peasants.

                    You need to do the equivalent. You need to do a deep dive in class analyses, potentially find new boundaries of revolutionary classes and target them. Yes, I want to hammer this point home for you and anyone else lurking. It may require developing new skill sets such as scientfic systemic analyses and public research. Stop going around in circles and not answering the questions (and I don’t just mean here in this thread).

                    And most importantly you need to start with yourself; ask the questions I have raised about your own personal situation using class analysis (no need to do it here; let’s keep it all anonymous)

                    I am going to leave it here unless there’s something more novel you can offer. Please seriously consider further reading. Maybe consider Torkil Lausen’s new book and Domenico Losurdo’s works especially Class Struggles, and even Walter Rodney’s work while we are at it.